During more than 14 years in office, Chavez routinely challenged the status quo at home and internationally. He polarized Venezuelans with his confrontational and domineering style, yet was also a masterful communicator and strategist who tapped into Venezuelan nationalism to win broad support, particularly among the poor.
Vice President Nicolas Maduro, surrounded by other government officials, announced the death in a national television broadcast. He said Chavez died at 4:25 p.m. local time.
Chavez repeatedly proved himself a political survivor. As an army paratroop commander, he led a failed coup in 1992, then was pardoned and elected president in 1998. He survived a coup against his own presidency in 2002 and won re-election two more times.
The burly president electrified crowds with his booming voice, often wearing the bright red of his United Socialist Party of Venezuela or the fatigues and red beret of his army days. Before his struggle with cancer, he appeared on television almost daily, talking for hours at a time and often breaking into song of philosophical discourse.
Chavez used his country's vast oil wealth to launch social programs that include state-run food markets, new public housing, free health clinics and education programs. Poverty declined during Chavez's presidency amid a historic boom in oil earnings, but critics said he failed to use the windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars to develop the country's economy.
Inflation soared and the homicide rate rose to among the highest in the world.
Chavez underwent surgery in Cuba in June 2011 to remove what he said was a baseball-size tumor from his pelvic region, and the cancer returned repeatedly over the next 18 months despite more surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments. He kept secret key details of his illness, including the type of cancer and the precise location of the tumors.
"El Comandante," as he was known, stayed in touch with the Venezuelan people during his treatment via Twitter and phone calls broadcast on television, but even those messages dropped off as his health deteriorated.
Two months after his last re-election in October, Chavez returned to Cuba again for cancer surgery, blowing a kiss to his country as he boarded the plane. He was never seen again in public.
After a 10-week absence marked by opposition protests over the lack of information about the president's health and growing unease among the president's "Chavista" supporters, the government released photographs of Chavez on Feb. 15 and three days later announced that the president had returned to Venezuela to be treated at a military hospital in Caracas.
Throughout his presidency, Chavez said he hoped to fulfill Bolivar's unrealized dream of uniting South America.
He was also inspired by Cuban leader Fidel Castro and took on the aging revolutionary's role as Washington's chief antagonist in the Western Hemisphere after Castro relinquished the presidency to his brother Raul in 2006.
Supporters saw Chavez as the latest in a colorful line of revolutionary legends, from Castro to Argentine-born Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Chavez nurtured that cult of personality, and even as he stayed out of sight for long stretches fighting cancer, his out-sized image appeared on buildings and billboard throughout Venezuela. The airwaves boomed with his baritone mantra: "I am a nation." Supporters carried posters and wore masks of his eyes, chanting, "I am Chavez."
Chavez saw himself as a revolutionary and savior of the poor.
"A revolution has arrived here," he declared in a 2009 speech. "No one can stop this revolution."
Chavez's social programs won him enduring support: Poverty rates declined from 50 percent at the beginning of his term in 1999 to 32 percent in the second half of 2011. But he also charmed his audience with sheer charisma and a flair for drama that played well for the cameras.
He ordered the sword of South American independence leader Simon Bolivar removed from Argentina's Central Bank to unsheathe at key moments. On television, he would lambast his opponents as "oligarchs," announce expropriations of companies and lecture Venezuelans about the glories of socialism. His performances included renditions of folk songs and impromptu odes to Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong and 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
Chavez carried his in-your-face style to the world stage as well. In a 2006 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he called President George W. Bush the devil, saying the podium reeked of sulfur after Bush's address.
Critics saw Chavez as a typical Latin American caudillo, a strongman who ruled through force of personality and showed disdain for democratic rules. Chavez concentrated power in his hands with allies who dominated the congress and justices who controlled the Supreme Court.
He insisted all the while that Venezuela remained a vibrant democracy and denied trying to restrict free speech. But some opponents faced criminal charges and were driven into exile.
While Chavez trumpeted plans for communes and an egalitarian society, his soaring rhetoric regularly conflicted with reality. Despite government seizures of companies and farmland, the balance between Venezuela's public and private sectors changed little during his presidency.
And even as the poor saw their incomes rise, those gains were blunted while the country's currency weakened amid economic controls.
Nonetheless, Chavez maintained a core of supporters who stayed loyal to their "comandante" until the end.
"Chavez masterfully exploits the disenchantment of people who feel excluded ... and he feeds on controversy whenever he can," Cristina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka wrote in their book "Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President."
Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias was born on July 28, 1954, in the rural town of Sabaneta in Venezuela's western plains. He was the son of schoolteacher parents and the second of six brothers.
Chavez was a fine baseball player and hoped he might one day pitch in the U.S. major leagues. When he joined the military at age 17, he aimed to keep honing his baseball skills in the capital.
But the young soldier immersed himself in the history of Bolivar and other Venezuelan heroes who had overthrown Spanish rule, and his political ideas began to take shape.
Chavez burst into public view in 1992 as a paratroop commander leading a military rebellion that brought tanks to the presidential palace. When the coup collapsed, Chavez was allowed to make a televised statement in which he declared that his movement had failed "for now." The speech, and those two defiant words, launched his career, searing his image into the memory of Venezuelans.
He and other coup prisoners were released in 1994, and President Rafael Caldera dropped the charges against them.
Chavez then organized a new political party and ran for president four years later, vowing to shatter Venezuela's traditional two-party system. At age 44, he became the country's youngest president in four decades of democracy with 56 percent of the vote.
Chavez was re-elected in 2000 in an election called under a new constitution drafted by his allies. His increasingly confrontational style and close ties to Cuba, however, disenchanted many of the middle-class supporters who had voted for him. The next several years saw bold but failed attempts by opponents to dislodge him from power.
In 2002, he survived a short-lived coup, which began after a large anti-Chavez street protest ended in deadly shootings. Dissident military officers detained the president and announced he had resigned. But within two days, he returned to power with the help of military loyalists while his supporters rallied in the streets.
Chavez emerged a stronger president. He defeated a subsequent opposition-led strike that paralyzed the country's oil industry, and he fired thousands of state oil company employees.
The coup also turned Chavez more decidedly against the U.S. government, which had swiftly recognized the provisional leader who had briefly replaced him. He created political and trade alliances that excluded the U.S., and he cozied up to Iran and Syria in large part, it seemed, due to their shared antagonism toward the U.S. government.
Despite the souring relationship, Chavez sold the bulk of Venezuela's oil to the United States.
He easily won re-election in 2006, and then said it was his destiny to lead Venezuela until 2021 or even 2031.
"I'm still a subversive," Chavez said in a 2007 interview with The Associated Press. "I think the entire world has to be subverted."
Playing such a larger-than-life public figure ultimately left little time for a personal life.
His second marriage, to journalist Marisabel Rodriguez, deteriorated in the early years of his presidency, and they divorced in 2004. In addition to their one daughter, Rosines, Chavez had three children from his first marriage, which ended before Chavez ran for office.
Chavez acknowledged after he was diagnosed with cancer that he had been recklessly neglecting his health. He had taken to staying up late and drinking as many as 40 cups of coffee a day. He regularly summoned his Cabinet ministers to the presidential palace late at night.
He often said he believed Venezuela was on its way down a long road toward socialism, and that there was no turning back. After winning re-election in 2012, he vowed to deepen his push to transform Venezuela.
His political movement, however, was mostly a one-man show. Only three days before his final surgery, Chavez named Maduro as his chosen successor.
Now, it will be up to Venezuelans to determine whether the Chavismo movement can survive, and how it will evolve, without the leader who inspired it.
Cenk Uygur sits down with Peter Joseph, founder of the Zeitgeist movement and creator of Zeitgeist, The Movie. The Zeitgeist movement's goal is to create global sustainability by changing established social systems. Can people save the world by changing socially? Is the market economy responsible for corruption, and is it serving its original purpose? Does the market economy leave room for true freewill, and is it truly possible to shed ourselves of material goods? Is Wall Street and its influence creating a sickness among mankind?
Cenk Uygur talks to Peter Joseph in-depth about the Zeitgeist movement, answering questions including how it would work, if it could work, and why the current social structure needs it to work.
Stefan Molyneux is the host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com.
A €10 billion bailout required a 9.9% tax on anyone with deposits greater than €100,000, and 6.75% on those less than €100,000. Savers who lost money would be compensated by shares in commercial banks, with equity returns guaranteed by future revenues expected from natural gas discoveries. The president was elected weeks ago partly because he ruled out any kind of wealth tax.
According to one report, the IMF and EU were originally demanding a 40% wealth tax on bank account holders in Cyprus. What is so wrong with Cyprus? Unemployment is half that of Greece and Spain, debt to GDP is 87%, US has a debt to GDP of well over 100%. This is economic imperialism, a fundamental breach of property rights, dictated to a small country by foreign powers.
The European Central Bank has no money, it's exchanging paper for assets. Cypriot banks got into trouble after using €4.5 billion on they greet government bond holdings after Euro zone leaders decided to write down Greece's debt last year.
The Cypriot president said if he hadn't accepted the tax on bank deposits, the European Central Bank would have stopped providing emergency funds to the country's top two lenders which would have led to the collapse of the banking system, the bankruptcy of thousands of small businesses, massive job losses, and ultimately the country's exit from the euro.
Everything you need to know that the media is not telling you...
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio - and winner of the 2012 Liberty Inspiration Award - breaks down the unspoken facts about the end of freedom, opportunity and trade in the modern United States. There will be no economic recovery, prepare yourself accordingly.
Henry Rollins is an American singer-songwriter, spoken word artist, writer, comedian,publisher, actor, and radio DJ.After performing for the short-lived Washington D.C.-based band State of Alert in 1980, Rollins fronted the California hardcore punk band Black Flag from August 1981 until mid-1986. Following the band's breakup, Rollins soon established the record label and publishing company 2.13.61 to release his spoken word albums, as well as forming the Rollins Band, which toured with a number of lineups from 1987 until 2003, and during 2006.
Since Black Flag, Rollins has embarked on projects covering a variety of media. He has hosted numerous radio shows, such as Harmony in My Head on Indie 103, and television shows such as The Henry Rollins Show, MTV's 120 Minutes, and Jackass. He had a recurring dramatic role in the second season of Sons of Anarchy and has also had roles in several films. Rollins has also campaigned for various political causes in the United States, including promoting LGBT rights, World Hunger Relief, and an end to war in particular, and tours overseas with the United Service Organizations to entertain American troops.
Directed / Produced by Jonathan Fowler and Elizabeth Rodd
Julian Assange speech that was censored by the Oxford Union.
The ceremony was organized by the Oxford Union. As a result of the video playing in the background and unsuccessful attempts to vet Julian's speech, the Union pulled the live stream from the event and spent two days substituting the US Army massacre footage with their logo. The Union claimed they feared that the US government would take legal action concerning "copyright" of the Apache gun camera footage. Wikileaks advised the Union that by law and practice the US government does not claim copyrights on footage or documents that it produces, the Union still decided to censor the video.
See http://collateralmurder.com/ for more information behind the Collateral Murder event in Baghdad. - Published on Feb 1, 2013
RIT Capital Partners, which is chaired by Lord Rothschild, has taken a 37pc stake in Rockefeller Financial Services, the family’s wealth advisory and asset management wing. It has snapped up the holding from French bank Société Générale for less than £100m. The transatlantic alliance cements a five-decade acquaintance between the now ennobled Jacob Rothschild, 76, and David Rockefeller, 96, the grandson of the ruthlessly acquisitive American oilman and philanthropist John D Rockefeller.
The two patricians now plan to capitalise on their family names to buy other asset managers or their portfolios, using their networks of top-notch contacts to ensure they get a seat at the table for any deal.
“We’ve known each other for a long time, they have a good business,” said Lord Rothschild yesterday. “We haven’t got a presence in the US and this brings together two formidable names in finance.”
He said the two firms planned to capitalise on current market conditions where banks, like SocGen in this instance, are selling non-core assets to rebuild capital ratios. “At a time when big banks are destabilised, there may well be opportunities,” he said. “We could buy an asset management company or grow one. Rockefeller already has $34bn (£21.9bn) assets under administration.”
He said David Rockefeller was still “very involved” in the business, though it is run day to day by chief executive Reuben Jeffery.
The Rockefeller group goes back to 1882, set up to invest the family money made by John D Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the forerunner for today’s Exxon Corporation, which he built with a Darwinian aggression. “Do you know the only thing that gives me pleasure? It’s to see my dividends coming in,” he once said.
The Rothschild banking dynasty has its roots in the 18th century when Mayer Amschel Rothschild set up a business in Frankfurt. Lord Rothschild fell out three decades ago with his cousin Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, who then ran the UK branch of the family bank NM Rothschild. That sprang to fame in 1815 when it bought government bonds in anticipation of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.
Lord Rothschild’s relations with the French side of the family have been better though and he likened the Rockefeller deal to RIT’s tie-up earlier this year with the Edmond de Rothschild Group, which has €150bn (£120bn) under management.
“We think that having that span of interests in Europe and America – as well as China – will give us a better chance of finding exceptional investment opportunities,” he said.
RIT, which has net assets £1.9bn, has had a tricky few months with the shares down about 14pc in the past year. They fell 6 today to £11.25.
Lord Rothschild said: “Everyone has been marked down. We didn’t have a brilliant year on the quoted side but we did do very well on the private side,” realising investments in North Sea operator Agora Oil and Gas and credit manager Harbourmaster.
Source: telegraph.co.uk - Author: Alistair Osborne, Business Editor
A rambling tirade of questionable thinking by DangerF
Conflict exists to promote evolutionary development. Though, it is no longer just physical, but for us who claim to be human, mental, emotional, spiritual.
In earlier times, conflict was more personal. It was all about surviving as individuals. Like many animal species, humans work together best in small herds of around 30 - 40. At that size, what is best for an individual is best for the group, it's easier to manage resources when times are tough, food and shelter can be readily shared without pressure on the individual, and one can still retire into their personal bubble space.
These days however, it is becoming increasingly obvious to those whose eyes and minds agree on what is displayed that survival of the species is rapidly becoming a group thing. We must now learn to overcome the herd mentality and become a hive. What is good for the individual now must be weighed against the good of all humanity.
Early in our history, man would slaughter each other on the basis of competition for survival. Conflicts were, in general fairly small, short-lived, take no prisoners type affairs. We lived in small tribal communities that were extremely protective of their local resources. Unannounced visitors were often treated as threats to survival, as archeological evidence has shown.
Putting aside other influences for a moment, one could say that this early fighting was about protecting self from external threats. If I had a small cave that would shelter my tribe from the approaching storm, and your tribe was caught outside and decided you needed my cave, the tribes would fight, winner had shelter, (and a smaller tribe). The same applied for food sources and whatever else was needed to survive. In short, the threats were external.
This was followed by a relatively Golden Age. The earth spirits had stopped leaving the refrigerator door open to make ice-age sculptures to show to their friends. The sky gods stopped using us for target practice by throwing large rocks and ice at us from space. Man had learned enough about the ground he walked on to make more efficient use of resources, growing food instead of collecting it so there was enough to go around, we learned to make shelters that withstood the weather, visiting other communities was encouraged in the name of trade. Now that we were not so busy protecting ourselves we had time to think and discuss the way the world worked, and travelers brought wondrous information about the world outside. Communities began to work together to better the living conditions of the group, perhaps with some thought of preparation in case we pissed off another vengeful god. Who knows? The point is we didn't kill each other in order to survive. Sure folks still stabbed each other, but usually that was more because someone was being a dick.
Man began to understand nature. Those who understood the finer details were variously called shamans and witchdoctors, later they were alchemists and magicians. These days we normally call them scientists, (though I'm beginning to doubt whether they know more than the ancients did about the Earth).
Moving on, conflict began to appear again. This time the scale was much larger, it was not about community survival either. Also, the instigators tended not to be on the front lines so much, preferring to play chess from the back of the field. Oh sure, there were few at the start who obviously didn’t think of it, too busy with bloodlust, but as time progressed the fight starters learned that picking up whores for post-battle sex was easier if they weren’t dead. Exaggerating ones deeds was another survivor’s perk.
The reasons for battle now had become twisted. It became a competition, not for resources, but for stuff. Everyone had enough food and shelter, until some dick decided he needed more stuff. Watch some George Carlin talking about stuff -
The fights moved from ‘stuff’, and now were less about ‘stuff’ and more about ideologies. People stopped thinking about each other, and became more interested in having other folks agree with their ignorant ideas. They got so worked up and over-excited about changing the colour of the ground from green to red, they forgot how they had existed relatively harmoniously despite differing opinions, (slight assumption, just go with it).
Imagine the battlefield sledging (do it in a child’s voice!) - “My battle god is better than your battle god, and He said we could take your stuff and rape your women”. “The earth is flat not round we fool, here taste my sword”. “Don’t be teaching folks how to read and communicate information, they might tell each other about how we stabbed that guy who talks about round planets”. And so on...
Since then we have become more civilized. Err oops, getting ahead of history.
There is so much propaganda from either side, it’s hard to know what’s really happening. We have such an unprecedented access to information one would think we would know what is going on, but do we?
We have enough food to go around, yet people starve to death because they can’t pay for it. We have enough resources, we just like wasting them or again, don’t have as much monopoly money as the chaps who own the printing press. We have enough fuel, we just refuse use it efficiently because, yes I really do need a 22 foot long 12 foot high vehicle that uses more fuel than the Exxon Valdez tipped on the beach to get some milk and bread. We have the technology and mind to create a world without money or borders, but we’d rather fight and squabble like unevolved Neanderthal babies with no social experience.
We all know this behavior is bullshit stupidity, yet we continue to let ourselves be led into dispute like lemmings off a cliff. We keep following the herd we live in, obeying its values even when we know they are not in our or anyone’s best interest. Why? Because our behavior is a holdover from when we lived instinctively, fighting for survival. Think about this next time we speak to someone, watch their reactions, and test them. Are they reacting rationally to you? Most don’t.
The Universe we live in is dualistic (as far as we can tell). It is not static. Look at the life cycles of planets and stars, of plants and animals. Actually look at anything cyclic. There is up time and down time. There is growth and life and entropy and death. Physics tells us that energy is never destroyed, just changes form. The minerals and elements in your body only exist because some stars died to form them. This webpage - We're made of stars! - has some nice charts, info and more cool links. You are a Star! How cool is that!
A star had to die for us to live. Before it died it suffered enormous stresses which caused it to create the bits that make us. The food we eat also came from a dying star, think about next time you eat.
Without stress, strengths are not developed. Swords are made from metals that are heated and beaten and cooled many times. Everything around us would not exist without stresses being put on them in some way to produce the qualities they contain. Wood can even be tempered with heat. Bacteria, viruses and such can be introduced into the body in such a way that it stresses the body to become stronger, less susceptible to disease, even immune to some infections.
Our mental process is no different. We learn life lessons from stressful experiences. Education stresses the mind to remember patterns and symbols, ideas and associations. When we went to school the exams were often stressful because of the pressure/stress your parents or peers or we gave yourself to perform well, but we learnt something. It stuck in your head. If you’re like me you probably don’t recall the lesson details very well, but it’s in there, ready to surprise us when we need it. Environmental and cultural clashes induce stresses often forcing re-evaluation of values, morality and beliefs.
These are the opportunities to become the person we, perhaps secretly, think we want to be. Everyone has something they wish they could change about themselves. Lose weight, gain strength, have hair, make more money, make the world a better place.
We know in our hearts what is good for us, we all do. It’s like pointing out the obvious, but I’m going to anyway. We know eating at McDonalds is equivalent to eating the wrapper after its been dragged thru a poison factory then used to wipe someone’s ass, but we eat it anyway. We know we shouldn’t eat that second bowl of ice-cream because it will go straight to our ass, but we can re-start that diet tomorrow. We know we shouldn’t eat any food that has a label, but it’s so much quicker than waiting for vegetables to cook. We know our body only needs a few handfuls of fresh food each day, but still we gobble that extra bacon at breakfast plus a pie on the way to work then a large lunch with small desert then go home for 2 helpings of dinner followed by desert or three, a quick sandwich before bed or maybe a midnight snack. Not to mention the lolly's and chocolate and whatever crap snuck in between meals that we didn’t tell the wife about. We know we need 2-3 liters of clean water each day but we merrily justify coffee, coke and alcohol as forms of water. We know the tap water is full of chlorine and fluoride, both of which are extremely bad for your health but we mindlessly allow the government to keep slowly poisoningus anyway. We know the government has never ever been beneficial for the public no matter who is in charge and the elections are rigged and still we vote because they tell us to. We know the wars in the world are bullshit (well we should, there is enough evidence of the scam) but we keep cheering the troops on.
This is Insanity. There is so much crap going on in the world right now it’s becoming difficult to stay sane. Far too often, we rely on someone else to tell us what to do. Luckily there is no shortage of folk who think they have a valid opinion of how you should live. Doctors, priests, politicians, pretty plastic people on TV, even well-meaning family members. Besides your family, everyone else is collecting a paycheck from telling us what to do. These are very stressful times in which we live, and it’s normal and ok to ask for guidance. But only we know what is best for us. If we’re not using these stressful times to re-evaluate, to test our beliefs, to look at life from another angle, we are not going to be that person we want to be or expect others to be.
We have already overcome the evolutionary forces that nature thrusts upon us. Now we must learn to overcome the vagaries of mind, biases of our narrow, limiting perceptions, to not be pushed around by petty differences, to learn how to integrate the baser 'negative' aspects of our nature and turn them into powerful, positive forces for 'good'.
This can only be achieved through unity and common goals, though not necessarily common beliefs. We must learn that our weakness is another's strength, that our strength is a compensation for our brother’s weaknesses. We must learn that weaknesses are not shortcomings. They are opportunities for growth, lessons to learn.
We all want change of some kind. Why not make some? Why wouldn’t you want to be better person? Do you think you are all you can be? Don’t limit yourself like that. Don’t let others prejudice limit you like that.
This era is your test. It’s your time to grow. Show yourself what you can do. The evolutionary development of your mind is your responsibility. It is a choice. A choice to evolve or to continue to react out of instinct. Acting out of instinct was valuable when we knew little or nothing of the world around, of social interactions, when it meant our survival. Now, we have everything we need to survive. We have the knowledge. We have the technology. We have a choice how we use it. Having these things makes our survival a no-brainer, allowing us something we never had before - the ability and choice to develop ourselves, to free ourselves from the fears that hold us back (whether or not we admit to them, they are there).
We have the power to make positive change for all mankind, both present and future. This change starts with the individual. As Gandhi said, “Be the change we want to see in the world”.
Give it a go. Amaze yourself. Be inspired and Inspire.
Anarchadia: Do you see a link between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood which has been considered in retrospect as manipulated by western interests to destabilize the Middle East?
Noam Chomsky: I don't know of any evidence for a relation, and I'd be cautious about the term "destabilize". It's a term of imperialism. Thus Obama praises the brutal dictator Mubarak because he "stabilizes" Egypt, and opposes the Muslim brotherhood because they are calling for democratic elections, in which they are likely to do well, thus "destabilizing" Egypt.
Anarchadia:What is your opinion on this quote: "Nor was that all. Sound beatings of the Moslem Brotherhood organizers who had been arrested revealed that the organization had been thoroughly penetrated, at the top, by the British, American, French and Soviet intelligence services, any one of which could either make active use of it or blow it up, whichever best suited its purposes. Important lesson: fanaticism is no insurance against corruption; indeed, the two are highly compatible." Quote from Miles Axe Copeland, Jr. "The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970".
Noam Chomsky: Miles Copeland is not very reliable.
Anarchadia:Well neither is Obama, but sometimes the pieces fit together. I mean true, this sort of mentality benefits the Islamists, Chinese and Russians... but was it not this sort of meandering from the projected truth about Vietnam, which woke us from the extreme anti-communist fervor the American populace had been living in for the last 20 or 30 years?
Noam Chomsky: On Vietnam, the meandering was towards reliable fact and understanding. Takes better evidence than this, in my opinion.
Anarchadia:It is harder to have reliable facts today, because everything which is factual and needs to stay a secret, is marginalized. The first thing you said about Copeland, was that he was unreliable. But, if you take the true nature of anyone, everyone is unreliable, right?
Noam Chomsky: It's true that quantum physics is not 100% reliable, nor is astrology. But there is a difference. Afraid I don't follow the rest.
Anarchadia:It is my opinion that marginalization is a weapon for keeping things on the down low. If you take three specialists, from different parts of the world, let's say: Iran, U.K and Israel, all three will come up with different conclusions while looking at the same facts. Yet the one who is backed by the interests that be, will be the person who is considered most linear (on the mainstream level). Do you have any comments on this?
Noam Chomsky: I've written extensively on these matters, and don't have much to add. We know that outside of narrow areas of logic and mathematics, nothing can be definitively proven. From that fact deeply confused post-modernists go off into fantasies about conflicting narratives, no truth, etc. In fact, it's been understood for centuries that we can make sensible (if not certain) judgments quite often - about the matters you mention, for example. On Wikileaks, if you read yesterday's newspapers you can see that the main thrust was interpreted differently in the NYT and the London Financial Times, the world's leading business daily. That's fairly systematic, and understandable, a tiny example of what I and others have documented in great detail. The US-UK coup in Iran was not only known at once, but celebrated in the press - the NY Times, for example. I've often quoted it. Some take the Warren Commission as accurate, many question elements of it, or even all of it. That has nothing to do with the question of general significance: was there a high-level conspiracy with policy consequences? To that the answer is: No, with very high probability, a matter that I've written about in detail. The Truth Movement receives unusually high publicity as contrasted with genuine activist critique of state crimes. Simply compare Griffin's exposure on CSPAN, etc., to that of activist dissenters. The reason may be that it is welcomed by power systems, much as JFK conspiracy theories have been (as we know from internal documents), because it diverts energy and attention from ongoing crimes of state. If he or anyone could present a coherent account of what they think happened, one that is not undermined by the most elementary considerations, - and I suppose others - would pay some attention to it. I was closely involved with leaking the Pentagon Papers, and am very glad they came out, but in fact they had almost no impact on the decisions by the business world and the government to slowly withdraw from Vietnam, which had already been taken. A great deal is indeed marginalized. I've written thousands of pages on the topic, as have others. But I think you are ignoring the most significant examples and keeping to some which, while fashionable, are not of much importance.
Anarchadia: I absolutely see what you mean. I am 23 years old and not as informed, but I try to be. I am a constant activist, and am outraged by the indecency with which law abiding citizens are treated (protest parks, ultrasounds, escrow police spying and dressing up imitating violent activists such as the black blocks, heavy armor, gas, etc...). Democracy is being sold off to private contractors, and we protest to no avail (France). I also see what you mean when you say that the truth movement is somewhat cathartic: The Truth Movement has a tendency to lure people towards the Tea Party which has been very highly publicized, and even clamored by the crooks over at Fox News. Example: Alex Jones has a tendency to be able to explain things that other Media Organizations can't (I am a very rational person and definitely see through Infowars political and advertising strategies, which are populist sometimes and very far from fact). Yet, the Infowars website surprises me from time to time with a decent sourced article; but then, Alex Jones goes on to supporting the tea party and the terror advertisers who advertise on the Infowars website. Have you heard of Alex Jones?
Noam Chomsky: I don't know much about Jones. The little I've seen, not enough for a serious judgment, seemed to be pretty wild. On 9/11, the coincidences, etc., may seem remarkable, but they are normal. Look at any complex historical event through a microscope, and that's what you'll find, even breaches of security that go far beyond 9/11 in significance. E.g., it was just revealed that Clinton lost the code that authorizes launching nukes, which means that for four months, the USSR could have launched a surprise attack, destroying the US, with complete impunity. A few years ago a nuclear-armed bomber flew across the country, violating the highest security controls. A malfunction could have destroyed most of the country. Etc. That's why scientists do experiments instead of studying videotapes of what's happening outside the window. It's why historians hotly debate events that have been intensively studied. The TMers do not seem to understand the nature of evidence - and also, do not understand why they are laboring to show that Saddam or bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, inadvertently of course. That requires following a simple argument. Your hypothesis that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 but didn't try to stop it is weak enough so that the evidence is almost irrelevant. But it still assumes that they are utter lunatics, or else they would have blamed it on Iraqis, not Saudis, as has been pointed out over and over. I'm afraid your other assertions vanish in much the same way as these, or what you claimed about concealing the Iranian coup, when subjected to scrutiny. If you'd like to believe these things, that's your business. But if you want anyone to take your speculations seriously, you'll have to make a case. I've written about most of the matters you mention.
What you say has shreds of truth. Thus, of course the US had oil in mind in invading Iraq (and was compelled to abandon its major war aims in this respect, as we have seen). The concept "false flag" has become popular with the TM, who uses it in ways that make it almost meaningless. Of course governments invent ways to frighten populations into obedience to pursue aims of dominant power centers. We hardly need these rather random speculations to establish that. It's topic of extensive serious work.
Anarchadia: I admit, every point I've tried to make has for the most part been an assertion. Scrutiny is what keeps my opinions objective. I don't pretend to know the truth behind these events, but I have an insatiable need for truth, and am always searching for it. On the - Clinton losing the code incident - don't you find this story is politically motivated? To release such information, especially today when America is positioning itself against China and Russia? This seems like they are inciting fear into the American mind (again) about: "what if Russia (China, Iran) attacked us". I find it insane how much war fomentation is going on these days. The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is an Ex-CEO of one of the largest military contractors in America and abroad, I mean talk about conflict of interest (they sold weapons to Taiwan against China's firm request not to, that is a direct breach of National Security). Democracy has been taken hostage by military profiteers, pharmaceutical/chemical corporations, big banks and their arm of hijacked government the Federal Reserve (whoever can pay for the expensive campaigns and shoes of opportunists such as Sarah Palin). Political prostitution is at an all time high. So when you say that there is a very small chance that 9/11 was caused by western interests I have to disagree. If you look at any complex situation through a microscope you can also get lost in the complexity. "Tout est relatif". This goes both ways. When you talk about the Bush Family as lunatics, I disagree; I see them as somewhat intelligent. They know exactly what they are doing. And why they are doing it. I met Carla Del Ponte last year here in Lyon, France, and she talked about her meeting with President Bush (when she was trying to get war criminals of the former Yugoslavia extradited). She says he seemed very concerned in person and said "Carla I will personally look into this, I promise". She never heard from him again. This I think clearly depicts a very good liar instead of the stupid yet powerful imbecile of a president everyone has been making him out to be. His father was the head of the CIA. That is a very strong asset. The U.N. has also been hijacked by political prostitutes and we live in a far more nefarious world than the transparent one you tend to proclaim when assertions are made about 9/11, Kennedy, etc... The internal organization in charge of supervising the U.N. has been suspended since 2009. Surely this is more important than an idiotic playboy president like Clinton losing the Nuclear codes? I mean after all it is people who invest their pride on this logic and transparency you talk about, who voted for Clinton. Surely there is a reason why Wikileaks has published more scoops than the New York Times has in a decade? What is your opinion on movements who are for auditing the FED and the the DOD? Also, those who are against organizations such as Bilderberg (and their claims that Obama secretly went to a meeting with Hillary Clinton)?
Noam Chomsky: You misunderstood. I didn't talk of the Bush family as lunatics. You did. More precisely, as I wrote, that is what follows from your speculations. Who do you propose to audit the DOD and the Fed? It would be amazing if Obama hadn't met Clinton, and why should it be advertised? There's no known significance to Bilderberg apart from the fact that rich and powerful people like to get together. Can't comment on the rest. By that kind of reasoning one can reach any conclusion. These are not what count as evidence and argument, in any form of rational inquiry.
Of course you don't believe that Bush is a lunatic. Rather, the theory you proposed implied that he is a lunatic. One of many reasons why it's hard to take the TM seriously. Nothing wrong with a civilian audit, but such proposals require mass popular support. To recapitulate, I pointed out that the theories proposed by the TM, and your much weaker one too, implied that the Bush administration were all lunatics; not just Bush the individual, but all of the planners. I'm glad we agree that the conclusion is unacceptable. It therefore follows that all the theories are too...
NOTE: After having spoken to Noam Chomsky about September 11 and the Truth Movement, I was more lost than ever: how can such a brilliant man (who I agree with on so many levels) be so opposed to a theory like 9/11 is an inside job? Is the movement and its abundant flux of information truly discreditable? OR has the mainstream media discredited so many points and used such strong rhetoric of ridicule towards TM that even intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky can't believe it? I got the impression that Chomsky just hasn't really looked into the facts about Sept. 11, simply because of all the false facts TM has incorporated into its rhetoric (which are easily exploitable by the spin doctors). I noticed that the media never directly discredited the TM. They acted as though it were of minor interest and could discredit itself. It can! Like the Norman Mineta video: if watched in full it is completely insync with Cheney's story (there are a few mistakes but not enough for indictment). So if there is a conspiracy behind September 11 Noam Chomsky is right about the fact that whoever orchestrated the event was very intelligent, and to solve the puzzle it will take true intellect and hard work to crack. But now that it has been discredited, we must become very careful: it took years to popularize the notion that Pearl Harbor was a false flag attack and we still don't truly know for Kennedy (although in my opinion the event was very suspicious). If George Bush Sr. and his entourage got away with the assassination of a U.S president, then yes, Bush Sr. was definitely not a lunatic!
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
